Web Only /
Features » August 15, 2005

Addressing the State of the Movement

Email this article to a friend

your email

your name

recipient(s) email (comma separated)

message

captcha

In These Times’ July 11 issue, “Environmentalism is Dead. What’s Next?” generated a number of passionate replies from a variety of different perspectives. To expand the debate, we’ve highlighted three responses, below. The first, “Where’s the Race?” from a set of environmental justice activists, argues that the “ecomorticians” ignore both the relationship of environmental issues to race and the contribution that groups devoted to addressing this issue have made to expanding environmental initiatives. The second, “Youthful Hubris,” by In These Times contributor and freelance writer Kelly Kleiman, suggests that progressives are ill-served by generational politics. And the third, by feminist writer and activist Amy Richards, “Show us the Solutions,” suggests that younger activists are more motivated by tangible problem-solving than ideology.

In These Times invites open dialogue on our discussion boards; we hope that these responses from informed and impassioned readers will motivate you to join the debate.

Where’s the Race?

In These Times’ cover story on Michael Shellenberger and Ted Nordhaus’ essay “The Death of Environmentalism-Global Warming Politics in a Post-Environmental World” reflected little of the extensive debate that’s gone on since the release of the commentary. Adam Werbach’s interview with Shellenberger and Nordhaus was no exception.

While Nordhaus and Shellenberger call for a multi-issue, inclusive movement, they don’t look past their own agenda to acknowledge a collaborative movement that has its roots in communities of color and has been growing since the early ’70s-the Environmental Justice (EJ) movement. EJ addresses the relationship between poverty; discrimination; varying access to food, clothing and shelter; and the disproportionate environmental degradation and pollution in low-income communities and communities of color. The movement has demonstrated that such communities bear a greater burden of environmental risk and has successfully lobbied and litigated against such discriminatory practices.

The systems approach Nordhaus and Shellenberger advocate is supported by the idea that structure creates behavior. Yet in his interview, Werbach limited the dialogue by restricting his inquiry to the lessons social movements can learn from corporations, ignoring domestic social movements like the multiracial, environmental justice movement, and multiple international movements that have achieved greater success over the last several decades. It is ironic that Nordhaus, Shellenberger and Werbach direct social movements to corporations for models of success, while corporations are monitoring the success of and collaborating with the environmental organizations the authors denounce. The interview, and the commentary it lauds, incorrectly pretends that the environmental movement is not shaped by a legacy of race and class relations.

This historical amnesia and race blindness extends beyond the environmental movement. Shellenberger says, “All the liberal single-issue movements need to challenge their basic assumptions about what the problem is that they’re trying to address, and develop a relevant vision for America and the world.” This is not new information. The critique parrots the focus of people of color in almost every social justice movement, from domestic violence to labor, transportation, foreign policy and criminal justice. Yet Nordhaus and Shellenberger don’t acknowledge this or place “their” solution in any historical context. When Shellenberger asks if abortion is the central reproductive issue facing the country, he seems completely unaware that women of color have had the very same struggle with disproportionately white women’s groups such as N.O.W., and were, in large part, responsible for ensuring that the March for Women’s Lives in April 2004 was inclusive and not solely focused on choice.

The “Death” discussions of expansive approaches to achieving environmental ends–which focus almost solely on the new Apollo Alliance (a group co-founded by Shellenberger)–ignores numerous innovative and successful efforts led by people of color and a few progressive white allies to engage in dialogues and affect change across populations and issues. For example, Smart Growth America–a coalition of national, state and local organizations working to improve the urban development, preserve natural areas, and reduce sprawl and auto-dependency–focuses on the issues people actually care about: being able to get to work without too much traffic, living in areas that are affordable and naturally beautiful, having access to safe footpaths so their kids can walk to school. The organization has redeveloped land, advocated for an increase in conservation funding and spearheaded the Small Business Liability Relief and Brownfields Revitalization Act (H.R. 2869), a major federal legislative victory for smart growth. Union groups such as The Coalition of Black Trade Unionists, United Farm Workers and Farm Labor Organizing Committee have helped workers secure health benefits and collective bargaining agreements. And EJ groups, ranging from Alternatives for Community and Environment in Boston to the Environmental Health Coalition in San Diego, have protected coastal wetlands, developed cost-efficient and effective pollution prevention initiatives, and worked directly with community residents to advocate for cleaner fuel alternatives.

“Death” completely ignores such success and saves its praise for their Apollo Alliance: an organization that has generated significant media attention, editorials, and Capitol Hill rhetoric, yet no tangible results.

A better-reasoned report than “Death” would not only better capture the values and issues surrounding the current crises in our country, but would address the reasons for social and environmental inequity, including questions of accountability and access to housing, health care, and jobs, as well as the legacy of American apartheid. If the authors believe, as they say, that “a Darwinian, dog-eat-dog economy begets dog-eat-dog, survival-oriented values,” then their oversight is not only short-sighted, it is irresponsible.

An approach without an explicitly anti-racist analysis that seeks to dismantle the racist framework of laws and attitudes that underpin declining American public and private institutions is not viable. Clearly, if such institutional problems were caused by white supremacy and the apartheid system it generated, an approach that does not take into account racial justice will not bring about needed change-despite any claims to the contrary. We are left to wonder: Do Nordhaus, Shellenberger and Werbach truly believe in the Heritage Foundation and Dinesh D’Souza’s race-blind approach to social change?

We are also moved to ask-do the authors have a search engine that brings up the principles and strategies of people of color, but strips them of their sources? If the eco-morticians think our ideas are good, why don’t they cite us and a host of colleagues, that we have repeatedly discussed with them? If the authors and their funders are interested in solutions, why don’t they examine or fund organizations that add a diversity of opinion to this important discussion? We welcome the fact that, after months of sustained criticism (from a coalition of scholars and activists, led in part by the Executive Director of Redefining Progress, Michel Gelobter), Nordhaus and Shellenberger have begun to acknowledge some of their shortcomings. They took a big step to broadening their approach in a recent conference, co-sponsored by the California-based Greenlining Institute, called “Beyond Environmentalism.” However, this interview demonstrates there is much more to be done and many more conversations to be had. We suggest the authors take their own advice, and engage in an authentic, informed and inclusive public debate.

Youthful Hubris

I found puzzling Jessica Clark’s June 21 commentary “Move Over, Boomers,” as well as Joel Bleifuss’s proud observation that the average age of In These Times’ staff is 28. Such attention to generational issues demonstrates that the left is in the process of making a mistake it has made repeatedly this century, that of deciding that its internecine struggles are more important than the needs and concerns of the wider society. If we doddering Boomers can teach the young Turks anything, it should be the limits of generational analysis.

The last time the young fought the old for primacy in progressive politics was the early ’70s, when the terms “Old Left” and “New Left” were used to represent various stripes and degrees of ideological purity. What’s important today is not the substance of the dispute but its consequence: a rift that elected Richard Nixon and began the long slide of the Democratic party, and progressive ideals, from the mainstream of American political life to its margins. How many times do we have to learn the same lesson? Conservatives are winning at least in part because they haven’t wasted any time playing “purer than thou” (or “younger than thou”), instead concentrating their attention on shaping and communicating their positions and getting people elected.

Generational politics are certainly as divisive as any of the identity politics condemned by Clark, and a lot less useful; for what unites any generation is a lot less meaningful than what divides it. I have much more in common with a person fifteen years my junior who cares about social justice than with a person my age who espouses repeal of the estate tax. Progressives should take a break from wondering “What’s the matter with Kansas?”-why people vote against their economic self-interest-and spend time instead noticing what’s wrong with us, why we work against our ideological self-interest with such self-destructive fervor.

If the young leaders Clark styles “practivists” truly “prefer to emphasize similarities rather than dwell in the ‘silos’ of various ‘isms,’” then perhaps they should resist the urge to indulge in the ageism showcased in her piece and devote themselves instead to articulating what they have to offer. Clark’s own evocation of these youthful white knights left me mystified. What does it mean that they’re “steeped in systems thinking”? That “they see politics as a fluid field of choice rather than a hard-and-fast test of their own radical identities?” Does that mean they have no principles? I find it difficult to applaud that for, as a generation even earlier than mine was fond of remarking, you’ve got to stand for something or you’ll fall for anything.

And why does a call for small-donor support of the Democratic party apply “more to middle-class voters with cable modems and time for meet-ups than to workers struggling to raise children”? Lower-income people give, and always have given, more generously than rich people to charity. If we want them also to give money to politics, the obstacle is not that they’re incapable of doing so but that the Democratic Party has thus far failed to make a persuasive case that it’s a worthwhile investment.

Finally, how can the women leaders among the “practivists” have been “trained and inspired by feminism [but] have explored the limitations of that movement and seek wider horizons”? Feminism’s only genuine limitation was that it wasn’t, by itself, able to solve all the problems it identified-that the upbringing of children and other socially valuable enterprises rest on the unwaged labor of women; that replacing that labor costs money the powerful are reluctant to spend; that the assertion of female rights will be discomfiting to male partners. But feminism promised, and delivered, an analysis of how society is organized to the disadvantage of women, and a roadmap for its reorganization. If Clark thinks that what unites women is less important than what divides us-as I think about people my age-that’s certainly an intellectually respectable view; but I find it hard to imagine a “wider horizon” than the effort to empower 51% of the world. Nor can I imagine the parochial struggles of progressivism offer the breadth she seeks.

Now I must rest my arthritic fingers, twisted with the hard labor of my 50 years. But if younger activists want me to move over, they’ll have to offer something more than mere belligerence.

Kelly Kleiman, Freelance Writer

Show us the Solutions

I absolutely appreciate the perspective of Adam Werbach and others in your July 11th issue on the current state of environmental activism. However, the authors themselves are guilty of the same criticism they unleash on others. They blame others for narrowly defining activism as conventional political reform and organizations for not offering specific suggestions. As my co-author and I offer in our book Grassroots: A Field Guide to Feminist Activism, we have to move beyond the generic three–sending money, volunteering and signing petitions–but, as we do in our book, we have to do that by offering specific suggestions. Perhaps the authors can devote as much verbiage to solutions and with that they can legitimately distinguish themselves from the staid leadership they critique.

The narrowness of this discussion was all the more alarming to me since the issue began with Jessica Clark’s fresh, smart and thought provoking editorial, “Move Over, Boomers.” Instead of naively blaming young people for being apathetic or disingenuously attempting to engage young people simply by creating something along the lines of a youth advisory committee, Clark actually articulates why young people aren’t participating in political reform (or revolt) in a way that mimics their predecessors. Politics is more broadly defined for this generation; in the past thirty years young people have watched the same approaches be tried and tested, all to little or no avail; people aren’t motivated by large, sweeping change but the tangible problems and thus solutions that exist in their own backyards. Clark demystifies what would motivate more people to get involved and her argument is consistent with what I hear as I travel to college campuses. For any organization legitimately trying to involve people of any age and more importantly, to solve the larger issues at hand, the ultimate conclusion is that we need to take more risks and truly offer practical tools that go beyond propping up dated organizations and ideas.

Kuya wrote:
"if another party could form around a modern galvanizing issue, one that didnPosted by BillG on 2005-08-20 06:28:30

It would make me glad to know that someone out of the Reps or Dems had an actual chance to be President, but to me it appears that any 3rd candidate would have an impossible time getting more than a few electoral votes, more likely none at all. Also, if s/he were somehow elected, virtually every federal legislator would be in the "opposition party" in effect, able to block any legislative agenda the occupant of the White House would promote. There would have to be enough broad-based support at the district level in favor of that candidate's party to weaken the two big parties' lock-hold on power. They've worked for decades to strengthen their power bases, and have been able to make any real challenge to themselves almost impossible, sadly.
On the other hand, 3rd parties have arisen in the past, and had an influential effect on public debate and policy. It was 100+ years ago, but precedents are precedents, and even the Republican Party was new and small, once. What brought them together was a galvanizing issue, preventing the spread of slavery into the conquered western territories in the mid-1800s. That's a very long and convoluted story.
However, if another party could form around a modern galvanizing issue, one that didn't evaporate in an election cycle or two, it might have a chance to gain a firm footing and show itself to be a force to reckon with.
A long-term strategy would have to be formed and broad support increased over time, from the level of the neighborhood to the district and beyond. Nader would likely be dead by the time power could perhaps be successfully wrested from the Rep/Dem monopoly, but if he or his supporters (or any other challenger to the big two) could get that groundswell started and capitalize on it, building not just a movement but a true alternate vision of how the power of the US government ought to be used, they could leave a real mark on history and in time have a strong nationwide scope.
Whether it's a Nader-inspired movement or someone else's, short of that, the two-headed monster is here to stay for a long time.Posted by Kuya on 2005-08-19 04:14:05

The best way to elect another Republican President in '08 would be for the Dems to run Hillary. You think Dubya's bad? Imagine the free world being run by Darth Cheney-burton.
Er, uh... wait a minute, I think we're already seeing that...Posted by g-love on 2005-08-18 13:25:12

Too Woods and others who have asked me why i dont ask that the Republicans stop taking corporate donations:
Ok you idiots get this this time please!
The Republicans are corporate whores and are happy being corporate whores and their constituents largely enjoy being corporate whores. Where as many Dems claim to be liberal and progressive and thus should not accept corporate donations. Moreover if the Dems actually do this as I have said before it will serve to seperate them from the Republicans and will win them over many independent voters such as myselfPosted by NaderRaider on 2005-08-18 11:09:50

And g love you know what we know the Dems are gonna run another crappy candidate in 2008.
Too all of you Dems out there do you think ur party will run a progressive such as Howard Dean and / or Dennis Kucinich(both of which I would vote for)? Or will your party weasel out and pick another fucking spineless moderate like Kerry.
Please tell your party not too run Hillary, she is no better than Kerry, please make sure the Dems run a viable progressive candidate, i.e. Howard Dean or Dennis KucinichPosted by NaderRaider on 2005-08-18 11:07:38

Sorry, it's a toss-up as to which party is more vile, evil and undeserving of public support and dollars: the bloated, corporate whoring Republicans or the spineless, know-it-all sanctimonious Democrats. They both suck. BIG TIME.
Look at Kerry... I'm sorry, but if you can't handily beat an alcoholic, ex-coke fiend brain dead fool like Dubya, I don't think I want you in office - ANY office. One of the few decent candidates the Dems trotted out was Kucinich and he was basically treated as a non-entity and the proverbial red-headed step child by his own freakin' party!
Instead of standing behind Kucinich and trying to show some kind of spine, doctrine and plan, they did everything they could to appear as Republican Lite, a truly horrifying image if there ever was one.
As far as I'm concerned, neither one of these bloated, cash-guzzling whores deserve my or anyone else's support.Posted by g-love on 2005-08-18 08:32:07

NaderRaider,
Instead of dressing down Democrats for taking contributions from corporations,why not tell Republicans to stop it?What's that?They tell you to get stuffed when they even deign to listen?I see.So,instead you pester the least of the offenders.Sweet.
I applaud Nader for his work during the sixties and seventies.A thousand thanks,prayers,and blessings.Yet,not every great man deserves to be president.If the greens had studied the campaign of 2000 as it was happening,they would have seen that the left needed every vote behind one organized party to defeat Bush,Rove and the reptilian,I mean Republican, Party.Instead,Nader set himself up for failure and now we've got the Bush administration.
What sort of environmental legislation has Bush given us?How close to the ideals of the green party have the Republicans come?The gap is so great not even Evel Knievel would dare to jump it.Posted by wwoods on 2005-08-18 06:26:53

As important as it may seem to evaluate the state of the environmentalist movement, I'm hoping that for most people the evolution of the movement over the years is less the focus and actually contributing to the slowing and stopping of environmental destruction is more so.
If we want to do something concrete, maybe the movement could expand its use of mass media, internet, TV/cable, and radio to publish the examples of harm committed by this-or-that company or agency, and promote consumer boycotts in response. As I usually phrase it, be relentless. If MurdochPosted by Kuya on 2005-08-17 23:58:11

Still no answer to why the Democrats do not take a hint from the Greens and Nader and stop taking campaign donations from corporations?
P.S. Lefty i do not mean worship in the religious meaning i mean that so many dems are unwilling to criticize the party in order to turn it more leftist and thus better integrate Green voters and Nader voters, if they did this it would pick up a few million votes as well as likely motivate the young electorate who is much more likely to be leftist.Posted by NaderRaider on 2005-08-17 20:43:29

All you do is give me personal attacks. You never answered the question of why dont the dems stop accepting corporate donations and take away some corporate power over Washington DC?Posted by NaderRaider on 2005-08-17 18:44:56

NaderRaider's bonding with the Green Party and Ralph Nader would have more credibility were it not for the fact that Nader ran as the Reform Party candidate in 2004, not the Green Party.
As most of us who have done a modicum of reading know, Pat Buchanan, one of the most virulent anti-Semitic candidates in recent time, ran as the Reform Party's nominee in 2000.
The Southern Poverty Law Center which documents the various hate groups in the U.S. defines the goals of the Reform Party in these words: "Right-wing extremist organizations promoted his (Buchanan's) candidacy on their Web sites and in their publications. Their members sponsored fundraisers for Buchanan and collected petitions to help get him on the ballot in all 50 states. They endorsed him both in their own groups and at state Reform Party meetings.
The support he received from far-right activists was particularly important to Buchanan as he battled a rival, relatively moderate Reform Party faction for $12.6 million in federal campaign financing that went to the party's nominee.
But Buchanan's take-no-prisoners stance on "culture war" issues Posted by Richard2 on 2005-08-17 16:11:40

To Richard2, Lefty and all you other Democrats who think your progressives yet call true progressives conservatives:
(Note to understand this please read my above three comments and Richard2s comments, moreover if u want to before you had to register to post commments if u want to see some of my old comments i was Richard from Ohio)
Here is why I blast the Dems and not the Reps:
1. I do not have a party, well at least a powerful party because as of now the greens are rather weak nationally.
2. As a liberal progressive i know i will never vote for the Republicans therefore i am not looking to improve the republicans into a progressive party that i could believe in.
3. the democrats on the other hand are a liberal party, but are not a progressive party!
4. With some improvements, like the suggestions and comments i have made on stopping taking corporate donations, make universal health care a bigger issue, start blasting Bush(yes they do blast him a bit but no where near as much as the anti war movement, the Greens, or Nader).
5. You see (and any Nader or Green voter please back me up on this) I blast the Dems b/c id like to eventually vote for them if they ever get their act together!
Until than I will proudly vote GreenPosted by NaderRaider on 2005-08-17 12:07:00

I am becoming more and more saddened with other progressives who continually bash me as a conservative instead of answering my damn questions and taking me as I obviously am a Nader / Green progressive. When will you people wake up and see that not every progressive votes for the corporate democrats and there cstills some of us that do believe in a multi party system and are voting for third parties. Moreover Richard2 why dont u have the balls to answer my question about corporate donations. As i said Ralph Nader and the Green Party(who are true progressives) do not accept corporate donations!Posted by NaderRaider on 2005-08-17 11:56:02

Just in case it slips by anyone's attention regarding the above NaderRaider's usual commentary, 95% of it is is mostly lambasting Democrats and liberals. Raider's comment, "Dear Lefty and all of your little cronies whom worship the Democratic party and feel they do no evil" says it all.
Throwing in a little poke at the other party, the Republicans, can hardly be disguised as nothing more than an anti-Democrat harangue and a feeble attempt to appear "fair and balanced," with about as much honesty as one can expect from Fox News Network.
Please, spare us the patronizing b.s.!
I intend to post my comments later on the main topic by the In These Times staff, Addressing The State of The Movement. I'll have to reread it because there are at least three separate issues being discussed.Posted by Richard2 on 2005-08-17 10:43:34

any and all Dems willing to respond on this please do..especially those of u who believe when u vote for Nader it was really a vote for Bush
ThanksPosted by NaderRaider on 2005-08-16 12:26:40

I'd like to apologize in advance to anyone who complains about people talking off topic as this will mostly be off topic, but at the end it will tie in with environmentalism.
Dear Lefty and all of your little cronies whom worship the Democratic party and feel they do no evil:
Corporations have the power of individuals in many manners one of which is to make donations to political campaigns. Although these powers were given along time ago the democrats and republicans do nothing about this. As far as the Republicans go we know they are for corporate power so they will obviously not speak up about this. But for all you Democrats who claim that the dems arent corporate whores think about this. How come the Democrats dont put forth legislation to take these powers away from corporations which are obviously not individuals and thus do not deserve to be treated as individuals. How come the Democrats accept corporate donations, and oftentimes donations from corporations, like Citibank which gave to both Bush and Kerry, when it is obvious these corporations are trying to play both sides to ensure they have an unfair say in government policy. Why doesnt the Democratic party stop taking corporate donations, AS THE GREEN PARTY AND RALPH NADER (BOTH OF WHICH DO NOT ACCEPT CORPORATE DONATIONS), in order to show their constituents they wish to stop the power corporations have over our government. Moreover why do corporations donate to both parties? Well they donate to the Republicans b/c they know they are very pro business and are easily bought. But why than do they donate in such large quantities to the Dems as well? B/c they know that although the Dems arent as much of corporate whores as the Reps that they are corporate whores none the less. All you Dems who wonder and ask so naively of why people vote for Nader or the Green Party and accuse us of helping the Reps just b/c we dont fall in line with the corporate Dems this is why we do not vote Democrat b/c u will not pressure ur party to stop taking donations from huge corporations.
Finally if you want to help the environment, as corporations are consistently polluting this earth all around the planet than u Dems tell ur representatives and convince other Dems that ur party needs to stop serving corporate interests and needs to stop taking corporate donations.
Progressive Organizations and sites to check out:
www.votenader.org
www.votecobb.org
www.dcvote.org
www.ssdp.org
www.norml.org
www.dpa.org
www.cjpf.orgPosted by NaderRaider on 2005-08-16 12:21:29